Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy: “President of Peace,” New Monroe Doctrine, and a Quiet Pivot Toward Russia

The Trump administration has released the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (November 2025) — a sweeping 30-page document that is part ideological manifesto, part foreign-policy reset, and part victory lap.

The NSS casts President Trump as “The President of Peace,” claiming that during just eight months of his second term he:

“secured unprecedented peace in eight conflicts throughout the world… and ended the war in Gaza with all living hostages returned to their families.”— NSS, p. 8–9

But a closer look at each claim — and a line-by-line reading of the strategy — reveals a mix of real diplomatic achievements, overstated successes, and PR-friendly interpretations of fragile or still-unresolved conflicts.

I. The NSS as a political document, not just a strategic one

Unlike previous administrations' NSS texts, the 2025 document is highly ideological. It frames American security not just in terms of military threats but in terms of:

• immigration levels,

• traditional family structures,

• economic nationalism, and

• a cultural revival defined as “American spiritual and cultural health.”

For example, the NSS asserts:

“This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”— NSS, p. 4

And later:

“We are rooting out DEI and other discriminatory and anti-competitive practices that degrade our institutions.”— NSS, p. 7

This is a substantial pivot. Prior NSS documents framed U.S. diversity and openness as strategic strengths. The new strategy folds the domestic culture war directly into national security doctrine.

II. A historic pivot: From global leadership to hemispheric dominance

The document announces a major strategic shift: the U.S. is downgrading Europe and the Middle East as primary arenas of engagement and instead elevates the Western Hemisphere as the core national security priority.

It proposes a “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” declaring:

The U.S. will “assert and enforce” a Hemisphere free of “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets.”— NSS, p. 15–16

This expands the Monroe Doctrine from blocking foreign military presence to blocking foreign investment, including Chinese-built ports, telecom, or infrastructure.

It also calls for:

• re-positioning U.S. military assets toward Latin America,

• possible lethal force against cartels,

• leveraging tariffs to coerce economic alignment.

This is one of the most dramatic doctrinal assertions in modern U.S. strategy writing.

III. The claim: “Peace in eight conflicts”

The fact-check: Some real diplomacy — but the NSS oversells results

The document highlights eight conflicts where Trump allegedly “secured peace.” In reality, the picture is more complicated.

Below is a conflict-by-conflict breakdown.

1. Gaza War — “Ended the war” and returned “all living hostages”

NSS claim:

Trump “ended the war in Gaza with all living hostages returned to their families.”— NSS, p. 8–9

Fact-check: True in part, overstated in part.

• A U.S.-brokered ceasefire did take effect, and all known living Israeli hostages were released in October 2025.

• However, multiple diplomatic and humanitarian assessments note:

  
  

  • Gaza is devastated,

  • political negotiations are ongoing,

  • governance and security arrangements are unsettled,

  • reconstruction has not begun at scale.

Calling the war “ended” is premature. The conflict is in a ceasefire and transition phase, not a final political settlement.

2. Israel–Iran War (June 2025)

NSS claim:

Trump “negotiated peace between Israel and Iran,” following Operation Midnight Hammer.

Fact-check: Ceasefire is real, but “peace” is inaccurate.

• The U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, striking Iranian nuclear sites.

• A ceasefire halted the 12-day conflict — confirmed by Pentagon and regional actors.

• But analysts sharply dispute the NSS claim that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated.”

• U.S. intelligence estimates leaked afterward suggest the program was delayed months, not “years.”

The conflict is paused, not resolved.

3. Armenia–Azerbaijan

NSS claim:

Trump “negotiated peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

Fact-check: The “Agreement on the Establishment of Peace” was initialed with U.S. mediation in August 2025. The deal is not fully implemented, and several provisions remain contested. Border stabilization and corridor logistics are still unresolved.

This is a peace framework, not a completed peace.

4. Cambodia–Thailand

A real agreement exists.

The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord (Oct 2025) was signed with U.S. involvement, but implementation has already faltered: Thailand suspended elements of the deal after new landmine incidents.

The NSS presents a fragile ceasefire as a finished success.

5. DRC–Rwanda (Eastern Congo)

DRC and Rwanda signed the Washington Accord with U.S. sponsorship. Fighting involving M23 and other militias continues. Implementation is widely described as stalled.

Calling this “peace secured” is optimistic at best.

6. India–Pakistan

A U.S.-mediated ceasefire was announced in May 2025 following border escalation.

But:

• India publicly rejected the idea of third-party mediation.

• Violations continue along the LoC.

This is de-escalation, not peace.

7. Egypt–Ethiopia (GERD dispute)

No final peace agreement exists.

• Talks intensified under U.S. pressure.

• Draft frameworks exist, but not a completed treaty.

This is the weakest claim in the “eight wars” list.

8. Serbia–Kosovo

Nothing resembling a final peace agreement occurred.

The NSS frames U.S. “efforts to prevent escalation” as though they were a formal settlement. They are not.

IV. “President of Peace”: A branding exercise more than an empirical claim

The administration’s list mixes:

Real diplomatic wins (Gaza hostage deal, Israel–Iran ceasefire, Armenia–Azerbaijan framework)

Fragile ceasefires (Cambodia–Thailand, India–Pakistan, DRC–Rwanda)

Premature or inaccurate “peace” declarations (Egypt–Ethiopia, Serbia–Kosovo)

The NSS collapses partial progress, ongoing negotiations, and heightened U.S. involvement into a single narrative of “ending wars.”

This framing appears designed to sell Trump as a global stabilizer, even when facts on the ground are more complicated.

V. Europe, NATO, and Ukraine: A quiet pivot toward Russia

The NSS includes a subtle but unmistakable repositioning:

1. Europe is described as in “civilizational” decline

Europe faces “loss of national identities,” “cratering birthrates,” and “censorship.”— NSS, p. 25–26

This is not analytical language — it’s ideological.

2. The war in Ukraine is framed as destabilizing Europe — not Russia

The NSS does not speak about Ukraine the way previous U.S. national security documents did. It does not frame the war as the defining challenge to European security, nor as a test of the liberal order, nor even as a direct threat to the United States. Instead, it treats the conflict primarily as a European economic shock, a risk of escalation, and an obstacle to restoring strategic stability with Russia.

The key passage states:

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.”

Several elements here make the administration’s direction unmistakable.

First, the document emphasizes negotiation rather than Ukrainian victory. The priority is not reversing Russian territorial gains but ending the fighting quickly through a settlement.

Second, the benefits the NSS lists are overwhelmingly external to Ukraine. The argument centers on Europe: stabilizing its economies, preventing the war from spilling outward, and avoiding further escalation. The restoration of “strategic stability with Russia” is explicitly named as a U.S. objective. Ukraine itself appears only at the end, and the bar set is minimal — its “survival as a viable state,” not the restoration of its full sovereignty.

Third, the surrounding paragraphs make clear that the document views the war as destabilizing Europe, not Russia. European governments that continue to support Ukraine’s maximal aims are described as politically fragile, “unrealistic,” and out of step with populations that “want peace.” The crisis is portrayed not as a Russian attack requiring long-term resistance but as a European political malfunction that the United States must help correct.

Finally, the emphasis on reestablishing “strategic stability” with Moscow signals a return to great-power balancing rather than containment or pressure. Historically, U.S. references to “strategic stability” involve nuclear risk reduction and managing relations with adversaries — not rolling back their military advances.

Put together, this language shows how the NSS intends to reposition the Ukraine war: not as a fight to be won, but as a destabilizing European problem to be brought to a close through negotiations. And because Washington holds decisive leverage over Ukraine’s military and financial lifelines, this framing strongly suggests that the U.S. will push both Kyiv and European capitals toward a settlement — one aligned less with Ukraine’s stated aims and more with Washington’s desire to "stabilize Europe" and restore a working balance with Russia.

3. NATO is redefined

The NSS stresses “burden shifting,” “ending the perception of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance,” and pressing Europe to assume regional responsibility.

4. Fact-check

The NSS claims Europe is not doing enough on defense, but NATO and EU data show:

• Record military spending

• Up to €392 billion in 2025

• 17+ countries now meeting or exceeding 2% GDP

• A new commitment to 5% GDP on defense by 2035

Europe is rearming faster than at any time since the Cold War — the NSS narrative downplays this.

VI. The Middle East: A downgrading masked as praise

The NSS says the region is “no longer dominated by conflict,” and Iran has been “greatly weakened” by Israeli and U.S. action.

But:

• Iran’s nuclear program is damaged but not destroyed.

• Regional tensions remain high.

• Gaza is in a ceasefire, not a final settlement.

The NSS is preparing the public for a reduction in U.S. involvement, enabled by:

• U.S. energy independence,

• normalization trends (Abraham Accords+),

• burden shifting to Gulf partners.

VII. The shift toward China: Economic, not military primacy

Trump’s NSS places China at the center of economic and industrial competition, not primarily military confrontation.

The core argument:

“The future belongs to makers.”— NSS, p. 14

The strategy emphasizes:

• tariffs,

• reshoring,

• industrial policy,

• tech dominance (AI, quantum, nuclear),

• restricting China’s supply-chain influence.

It envisions a world where economic leverage replaces forward military presence

.

VIII. Final assessment: What’s real, what’s PR, what’s new

What’s real

• Several genuine U.S.-brokered ceasefires (Gaza, Israel–Iran, Armenia–Azerbaijan).

• A hemispheric strategic pivot with serious policy implications.

• An economic-nationalist industrial strategy now formally embedded in national security.

What’s PR

• The “eight wars ended” branding — only 3–4 are substantial, and none besides Gaza (hostages) are fully resolved.

• Claims of broad “peace” where fragile, partial, or unimplemented deals exist.

• Descriptions of Iran’s nuclear setback as total or long-term.

What’s new

• The “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.”

• Culture, demographics, and DEI cast as security priorities.

• A shift away from Europe and Ukraine toward hemispheric dominance.

• An explicit downgrading of global democratic promotion in favor of transactional realism.

You can download the full document here.